DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim does not end in a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “its general direction” but a “general direction” is not defined in the claim and so it is not clear what is meant by “its general direction.”
Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim, as drafted, are not clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Armbruster (WO 2020/025361 A1)/(US 2021/0268700).
The above WO 2020/025361 A1 document is also published as US 2021/0268700, which is the document cited herein – it is considered to be equivalent to the corresponding WIPO publication that qualifies under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Armbruster discloses an injection molding device containing a transfer device (43) with a base (4) and center part (3) arranged rotatably with respect to the base about a rotation axis (z-axis) (par. 0036) in the injection molding device (1) (Fig. 7);
wherein (a) a column (5) is arranged in a sleeve (6), said column (5) and sleeve (6) being arranged rotatable with respect to each other about the rotation axis (abstract; par. 0043; Fig. 4); and (b) the sleeve (6) comprises at least two annular segments (corresponding with “sections 8”)(Fig. 8; par. 0035, 0039) arranged along the column (5) in the direction of the z-axis.
Examiner notes that Fig. 8 shows divisions in the sleeve (6) which are not labeled in the drawing, but is of the opinion that would have implied to one of ordinary skill in the art that these are separable into segments to the point where one of ordinary skill in the art would have “at once envisaged” this from viewing Fig. 8.
However, additionally, or alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have specified that the sleeve is divided into segments as is shown in Fig. 8 of the reference above, as is required in the claim (producing annular segments).
Regarding claims 2-3, Armbruster discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that at least one annular segment (corresponding with 8) of the sleeve comprises a bearing (12, 13; par. 0043; Fig. 4) on the inside the center the column within the segments of the sleeve and transfers liquid (par. 0041).
Regarding claim 4, Armbruster discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that there is at least one groove (7) (par. 0041) on an outer surface of the column (5).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Armbruster discloses the subject matter of claims 1/4, and further discloses that the section or segment (8) comprises a passage (unlabeled, Fig. 8) or channel (14) for fluidly interconnecting the first groove across the segment (par. 0041).
Regarding claim 6, Armbruster discloses the subject matter of claim 5, and further discloses that the passage (unlabeled, Fig. 8) would travel through the segment as to fluidly interconnect any grooves present and the outside of the passage (see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Armbruster discloses the subject matter of claim 4, and further discloses that there is a groove arranged to receive a sealing ring (par. 0041).
Regarding claims 8-9, Armbruster discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the sections (8) are arranged together in a form fit manner (par. 0041 – smooth transition surface) which would require an interface between the two components as to fit to each other as shown in Fig. 8.
Regarding claims 10-11, Armbruster discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the column (5) is arranged stationary with respect to the base (4) and the sleeve (6) is arranged stationary with respect to the base (2) either within the central mold part or outside of it (see Figs. 3 and 8).
Regarding claim 13, Armbruster discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the column (5) can have a staggered design (par. 0038) with a variable diameter.
Regarding claim 15, Armbruster discloses the subject matter of claim 14, and further discloses that the column (5) protrudes at least partially through an opening (38) of the base (4) (Figs. 5-8, par. 0036).
Regarding claim 16, Armbruster discloses the subject matter of claim 14, and further discloses that the drive may comprise a gear box (par. 0035).
Regarding claim 17, Armbruster discloses the subject matter of claim 14, and product claims are not limited by the process upon which they are produced. See MPEP 2113. Accordingly, it is not considered limiting that the base comprises a base plate being made at least partially by an additive manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 18, Armbruster discloses the subject matter of claim 14, and further discloses that the column (5) is supported by a coupling plate (26) or stationary part (20) of a drive (Fig. 5) (par. 0035).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights